VZCZCXRO6134
RR RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB
DE RUEHLO #7916/01 3171150
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 131150Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0413
RHEFHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUWDQAC/COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//G-CI/G-L/G-LMI/G-P/G-PS/G-R/G-RP/G-
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC//CRIM-CTS, NDDS, OIA/CIVIL-ENRD//
RUCPDC/NOAA EDS WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RULSDMK/DOT WASHDC
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 LONDON 007916 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/IOC FOR D. QUEEN, OES/OA, OES/OLP, L/OES, 
L/LEI, EB/TRA/OTP, L/UNA, S/CT, L/T 
DOD FOR OUSDP/PDUSD 
DOD PLEASE PASS TO CODE 10 OF US NAVY 
DOJ FOR CRIMINAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 
COUNTERTERRORISM SECTION, AND NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUG SECTION 
AND FOR CIVIL DIVISION, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 
DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PLEASE PASS TO TSA 
TSA FOR GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
SIPDIS 
NOAA FOR GENERAL COUNSEL 
DEPT OF TRSY PLEASE PASS TO CUSTOMS 
CUSTOMS FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR C-10 AND C-20 
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION PLEASE PASS TO MARAD 
MARAD FOR GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: IMO EWWT AORC ASEC UK PTER
SUBJECT: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO) REPORT OF THE 
NINETY-SECOND SESSION OF THE LEGAL COMMITTEE, PARIS, OCTOBER 16-20 
¶2006. 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Legal 
Committee held its 92nd session in Paris, France at UNESCO, October 
16-20 (LEG 92), under the chairmanship of Professor Lee-Sik Chai 
(Republic Of Korea).  The Legal Committee discussed, among other 
issues, the Draft Wreck Removal Convention (DWRC), provisions of 
financial security relating to the Athens Convention Protocol, and 
voluntary guidelines for the fair treatment of seafarers.  The 
Committee re-elected Professor Lee-Sik Chai as Chairman for 2007 by 
acclamation and also by acclamation elected Mr. Kofi Mbiah (Ghana) 
and Mr. Walter de Sa Leitao (Brazil) as Vice-Chairmen.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  DELEGATION INFORMATION:  Delegations from sixty-eight (68) 
States, associate member Hong Kong, along with twenty (20) other 
intergovernmental and nongovernmental bodies, including the 
International Labour Organization, attended LEG 92.  The United 
States delegation for LEG 92 consisted of Captain Chuck Michel, U.S. 
Coast Guard (Representative); Lieutenant Commander Laurina 
Spolidoro, U.S. Coast Guard (Alternate); and the following advisers: 
Lieutenant Commander Bud Darr, U.S. Coast Guard; Lieutenant Lonnie 
Kishiyama, Department of Homeland Security Office of the General 
Counsel; Mr. Robert Blumberg, Department of State, Bureau of Oceans 
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; Mr. Gregory 
Linsin, Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division; Mr. Stephen Miller, Department of State, Office of 
Transportation Policy; Mr. Walter Rabe, U.S. Coast Guard; Special 
Agent John Cornett, U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service; Ms. 
Lizabeth Burrell, Maritime Law Association of the United States; Mr. 
Douglas Stevenson, Center for Seafarers' Rights, Seamen's Church 
Institute. 
 
¶3.  DRAFT WRECK REMOVAL CONVENTION (DWRC): 
This Convention is being drafted in order to create a uniform scheme 
for States Parties to take measures established under the Convention 
to remove wrecks posing a hazard in the Exclusive Economic Zone of a 
State Party.  The Convention provides for compulsory insurance and 
direct action against the insurer.  The negotiations have been 
ongoing for well over ten (10) years and continued at LEG 92. 
 
¶A.  The DWRC will be taken to a Diplomatic Conference in Nairobi, 
Kenya from 14 to 18 May 2007.  Two suggestions, discussed 
informally, for Chairmanship of the Dip Con include Mr. Gaute 
Sivertsen (Norway) and Mr. Mark Gauthier (Canada).  The IMO 
Secretariat welcomes other suggestions. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
¶B.  The Committee conducted an article-by-article review of the 
draft text considering and approving most of the editorial 
amendments proposed by the Secretariat and the lead delegation of 
the Netherlands in the annex to LEG 92/4.  The text for the 
diplomatic conference will be prepared and circulated by the 
Secretariat as soon as possible.  The Committee also considered the 
 
SIPDIS 
substantive issues raised in written submissions to the Committee. 
As discussed below, two significant substantive changes will be 
reflected in the text for the diplomatic conference.  The text of 
paragraph 2 of article 13 will be placed in square brackets, 
following lengthy and controversial discussions of provisions to 
allow States to opt to extend the scope of all or portions of the 
DWRC to a coastal State's territory and territorial sea.  Article 16 
will incorporate by reference the compulsory dispute settlement 
mechanisms in Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of 
the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS). 
 
¶C.  Article 11(1) - terrorism exemption.  The International Group of 
P and I Associations (P and I Clubs) and the International Chamber 
of Shipping (ICS) proposed to exempt shipowners from liability for 
acts of terrorism by amending article 11(1)(a) to include the word 
"terrorism" as a complete defense.  LEG 92/4/4.  The Netherlands and 
the U.S. were in favor of retaining the current base text, but some 
 
LONDON 00007916  002 OF 004 
 
¶2006. 
 
delegations supported the exemption.  The issue remained unresolved 
as the Chairman noted that without a Member Government proposal to 
modify the text, it would remain unchanged, and the issue is likely 
to be raised again at the diplomatic conference. 
 
¶D.  Article 16 - mandatory dispute settlement. 
 
(1)  Italy and Germany proposed two alternative amendments to 
article 16 concerning the settlement of disputes.  LEG 92/4/1.  The 
first would incorporate the mandatory dispute settlement mechanism 
in Part XV of UNCLOS.  The second would require submission of 
disputes to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea 
(ITLOS).  Some delegations, including the U.S., preferred to leave 
the draft text unchanged.  The ITLOS option was rejected, and the 
Chairman invited Italy and Germany to work with interested 
delegations to revise their proposed text to take into account 
concerns raised about the complexity of importing UNCLOS Part XV. 
 
(2)  The new proposal, in LEG 92/WP.6/Rev.1, was adopted over 
explicit objections from the U.S. and several other delegations that 
the Committee had not taken a decision to amend the current text of 
article 16. 
 
(3)  Delegations that supported maintaining the current text, some 
of whom could accept alternative text as a compromise, included: 
Argentina, Turkey, Cyprus, U.S., Panama, Ecuador, Ukraine, the 
Bahamas, the Netherlands, China, Liberia, Sweden, India, Republic of 
Korea, Belize, Ghana, the Philippines, Nigeria, Denmark, U.K., and 
Algeria.  The Secretariat reported a tally of those who intervened: 
twenty-one (21) spoke in favor of the current text; twenty-nine (29) 
spoke in favor of the first option, five (5) or six (6) of whom 
preferred the current text; eight (8) spoke in favor of the second 
option.  When the compromise text in LEG 92/WP.6/Rev.1 was accepted 
by the Chairman, the U.S. and several other delegations (Turkey, 
Panama, Cyprus, and Liberia) intervened to state their understanding 
that a decision had not yet been taken to amend the current text. 
Several other delegations sided with the Chair's recollection that a 
decision had been taken, and the U.S., Panama, and Cyprus requested 
to have their objections noted in the report. 
 
¶E.  Extension of the scope of the Convention. 
 
(1)  Norway, Italy, and Denmark proposed two alternatives to extend 
the scope of the Convention beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 
into a coastal State's territory, including the territorial sea. 
LEG 92/4/3.  The first alternative was a mandatory extension of the 
scope of the Convention through an amendment to the definition of 
"Convention Area."  The second alternative was in the form of an 
opt-in provision that would allow States Parties to apply the 
provisions of the DWRC to their territory, including the territorial 
sea as against the world, including States Parties and potentially 
non States Parties (see below discussion regarding Article 17) who 
have not similarly opted-in.  The second alternative included 
consequential amendments to other provisions in the DWRC, including 
the definitions of "Convention Area" and "ship." 
 
(2)  Debate on this issue was lengthy and contentious with Cyprus, 
the Netherlands, and others calling for a vote on the issue of 
whether to amend the current base text.  As a compromise, the Chair 
accepted a subsequent proposal from Denmark to place article 13(2) 
in square brackets for the diplomatic conference and invite 
interested delegations to meet in London 12-16 March 2007, and by 
correspondence to further consider the issue and to develop text 
that might be more acceptable. 
 
(3)  During the review of the draft report, there was significant 
debate over whether a majority of the Committee had preferred to 
keep the current base text rather than amend it.  It was recalled 
 
LONDON 00007916  003 OF 004 
 
¶2006. 
 
that out of twenty-eight (28) delegations who spoke, fifteen (15) 
had preferred to keep the present text, but some of those 
delegations could accept some kind of opt-in provision.  In the end, 
it was decided that the report would indicate that although a slight 
majority favored retaining the current text, the Committee was 
divided. 
 
¶F.  Article 17 - application to non States Parties.  The U.S. 
proposal to amend the text of article 17 to provide that the 
Convention does not purport to alter rights of non Parties under 
customary international law was supported by Japan, Turkey, Peru, 
and Brazil.  Cyprus and Argentina expressed concerns with the 
Convention's application to non States Parties if the scope of the 
Convention is extended to the territorial sea or internal waters. 
Canada, Greece, and most of the other delegations stated that the 
U.S. proposal was not necessary because it is self-evident, under 
article 34 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, that 
States cannot be bound without their consent.  Canada added that 
including the U.S. proposed language would be harmful in that it 
would call into question the customary international law codified in 
article 34 of the Vienna Convention for treaties that did not 
contain similar language.  The U.S. then requested that it be 
reflected in the report that the Committee had decided that the DWRC 
does not bind and cannot be applied to non-Parties who have not 
consented to be bound, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on 
the Law of Treaties. 
 
¶4.  PROVISIONS OF FINANCIAL SECURITY/CREW CLAIMS:  The Legal 
Committee encouraged the Joint IMO/ILO ad hoc Expert Working Group 
on Liability and Compensation regarding Claims for Death, Personal 
Injury and Abandonment of Seafarers to continue its work on finding 
a longer term sustainable solution to the problem.  The Joint 
Secretariat was invited to schedule a meeting for the sixth session 
 
SIPDIS 
of the Joint Working Group. 
 
¶5.  PROVISIONS OF FINANCIAL SECURITY/ATHENS CONVENTION:  The Legal 
Committee adopted Guidelines for implementation of the Athens 
Convention as proposed by Norway in LEG 92/WP.5.  The Guidelines 
encourage States to ratify the Convention with a reservation 
allowing States to issue and accept insurance certificates 
certifying that cover for terrorism liability, in the war risks 
market, is available and limited to SDR 250,000 per passenger up to 
a total of SDR 340,000,000 per ship, per incident and further 
limiting carrier liability for acts of terrorism to the same amount. 
 The U.S. intervened to reiterate our procedural treaty law concerns 
with employing a standard reservation clause to amend important 
terms of the 2002 Protocol and our position that carriers should not 
be exempt from liability for acts of or related to terrorism without 
regard to fault.  Although several delegations, including Denmark, 
acknowledged that the Diplomatic Conference had decided that 
carriers should not be exempt from liability for terrorism, the 
prevailing view was that the compromise Guidelines were necessary to 
allow States to ratify the 2002 Protocol and presented the best 
possible current solution to the problem of the market's inability 
to meet the compulsory insurance requirements of the Protocol. 
 
¶6.  FAIR TREATMENT OF SEAFARERS:  As decided at LEG 91, the Legal 
Committee convened an ad hoc Working Group to review the Guidelines 
on Fair Treatment of Seafarers in the Event of a Maritime Accident 
that entered into effect on 1 July 2006.  The Working Group was 
tasked to consider concerns raised by Governments at LEG 91 and 
during the intersessional period. 
 
¶A.  The Working Group considered the issues noted in the paper 
submitted by the U.S., Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and France. 
LEG 92/6/2.  Although some delegations, including the U.S., believed 
there was agreement on the proposal of the International Chamber of 
Shipping (ICS), the International Shipping Federation (ISF), and the 
 
LONDON 00007916  004 OF 004 
 
¶2006. 
 
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in LEG 
92/6/4 at paragraph 6, to amend a wage provision in the Guidelines, 
the report concluded that the Working Group was unable to reach 
consensus on any amendments to the Guidelines.  The Chair of the 
Working Group, when introducing the report, explained that there had 
in fact been agreement in the group on the wage proposal.  LEG 
92/WP.7, para. 6.9. 
 
¶B.  Due to time constraints, the Committee did not approve the 
revised terms of reference for the Joint IMO/ILO ad hoc Expert 
Working Group on Fair Treatment of Seafarers in the Event of a 
Maritime Accident and agreed to retain the item on the agenda for 
the next Legal Committee meeting in the fall of 2007. 
 
¶C.  The U.S. intervened to state that we cannot fully implement the 
Guidelines and supported continuing review of the Guidelines by the 
Legal Committee.  The Netherlands also intervened to state that 
because the Guidelines were not amended, they would continue, until 
a solution is found, to interpret the wages provisions in a way that 
is consistent with their domestic law in order to implement the 
Guidelines. 
 
¶7.  TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES RELATED TO MARITIME 
LEGISLATION:  The Director of the Technical Cooperation Division 
proposed, in LEG 92/9/1, to report on the Technical Cooperation 
sub-programme related to maritime legislation biennially rather than 
on a semi-annual basis.  The Committee decided that, for the time 
being, it is preferable to receive the reports semi-annually. 
 
¶8.  BIENNIUM ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORGANIZATION 
STRATEGIC PLAN:  After some discussion noting the need for a clear 
programme of work and benchmarks to measure progress, the Legal 
Committee approved the Secretariat's proposed planned outputs for 
the Committee in part 2 of the annex to LEG 92/10.  The Committee 
also approved amendments to the Guidelines on Work Methods and 
Organization of the Work of the Legal Committee accounting for the 
Strategic Plan of the Organization, annex 2 to LEG 92/10, and 
requiring the establishment of intersessional Correspondence Groups 
when Working Groups are formed, LEG 92/10/1.  The revised Guidelines 
will be issued as LEG.1/Circ.4. 
 
TUTTLE